SO it’s back to the drawing board for ministerial government. It would appear that even the Council of Ministers, who have often boasted about the improvements introduced back in 2001, are having second thoughts about the way our machinery of government is working.

It’s not surprising, really. It has proved extremely difficult for ministers to devise comprehensive policies, get them approved by a majority of States Members and then implemented efficiently and cost-effectively. They were not even able to get their budget through the House unscathed.

So the council is proposing the setting up of another review panel which will look at ‘the extent to which the current allocation of roles and responsibilities ensures that plans and policies are developed in the most effective manner’.

This will aim to ensure that all States Members have the opportunity to be engaged in the process of government, value for money is achieved, financial management and all forms of governance are effective and all parts of the States are subject to appropriate accountability.

Among other things, they will have to review the effectiveness of Scrutiny in their role, according to the proposition which will be going to the States on 5 July.
Perhaps they are expecting too much. This exercise won’t exactly be The Return Of Clothier because the panel will consist of a cross-section of ministers and other States Members, and not outsiders and local ‘experts’. Of course there will be widespread consultation (probably too much) and the research involved will cost about £100,000. However, anyone who followed the agonisingly slow process of getting any Clothier recommendations approved will know what’s in store.

The big question, as far as I am concerned is: what’s the point?
We now have ministerial government, whether we like it or not. It certainly has its flaws, but it also has worked well in a number of ways. There are certainly changes that should be made, but do we really need to go back to square one to implement them?

In any case, surely everyone knows that it’s not the machinery of government that makes the States dysfunctional, it’s the political system. You can have the most efficient, well-oiled machine, but it won’t work properly if those involved in working it and maintaining it either don’t have the confidence or the support of the public or simply expect too much from the machine.

So it’s not simply a question of those involved in Scrutiny becoming frustrated because they are not part of the executive, and those in the executive becoming frustrated because they can’t get anything done. Whatever kind of machine you care to create, there will always be those frustrations. It’s called democracy.

Where the Jersey system falls down is in the fact that there is very little to connect the public with what the States are doing. The public are invited to put their cross on a ballot paper and then hope for the best. They have no direct impact on who governs them or even who opposes those who governs them. They certainly don’t have any choice of policy, which is surely more important than the machinery.

Presumably that is why this new review is intended to work alongside the recently established Electoral Commission, which is looking at the composition of the States. If anything, it’s the commission that has the more urgent job to do. It has got to make elections in Jersey more meaningful, although I suspect it might get bogged down in arguing about the size of electoral districts, which may be important but not crucial.

When I say that I don’t think a full-blown review of the machinery of government is necessary, I’m not doing so just to be difficult or simply oppose everything the Council of Ministers do. I think there are very real dangers in the States taking their eye off the ball at this particular moment and becoming too involved in what the States will look like after many of them have left after the 2014 elections.

It will also persuade States Members to continue to look inwards all the time and to believe that the way they organise themselves is the only thing that matters.
However, there are some big issues facing the States, including the future of the Island’s economy, which is by no means assured. We also have to make sure there are no signs indicating that the Island is closed for business, or even under reconstruction.

Then we have an international personality to project, and while I’m sure the review panel will consider this when looking at the new structure, we don’t have the luxury of time to get everything right before we actually come to grips with our problems.

I agree that it would be much better to have a more efficient government machine to take on those challenges, but we don’t, so it would be better to make the best with what we’ve got.

Of course changes will always be needed, and in fact there are probably some quite urgent reforms that we should make now and not wait until we see a report in 2013.

Perhaps this desire to virtually scrap everything and start again (OK, that’s a slight exaggeration) illustrates one of the major difficulties with the States now: we try to do too much at once.

Obviously governing even a small Island like Jersey is a complex business, and there’s always a lot going on. You can’t just concentrate on one subject at a time. You have to keep a lot of balls in the air.

But we could be in danger of suffering from too many government initiatives and a desire to do too much, too quickly. The Council of Ministers should pick the fights they need to win.

For example, in their proposition they highlight how different laws have worked against the aims of why government was reformed in the first place. Well, they could amend them, one at a time if necessary, not scrap them all and start again.
Then they bemoan the fact that the States Employment Board looks after staffing, not the Council of Ministers. In terms of policy and finance, it’s also individual ministers or chief officers who hold primacy, while the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister have a co-ordinating function and are not accountable for overall performance.

Well, do we really need to set up a comprehensive review to sort it out? Many States Members won’t want to see the executive given more power now, but they also will not want it in a couple of years after a panel has spent many hours coming up with such a solution, which will undoubtedly not be accepted in its entirety.

If the Council of Ministers can’t think of a realistic solution, a review panel won’t be able to either.

At the end of the day, whatever structure is devised, what happens in the States depends on the goodwill of States Members and their determination and professionalism. No panel is going to change that or make the political process easier.

Peter Body is editor of Business Brief magazine